In their reasoning, the judges pointed to the constitutional right of self-determination, and the disproportionate sanctions on marijuana versus alcohol and tobacco. But more than that, the ruling is a critical one, coming at a time when failing drug policies allow drug cartels to wreak havoc on the Mexican people, subjecting them to kidnappings, extortion, and worse.

One of the four people party to the case, Armando Santacruz, told the press, “Our objective was always to change drug policy in this country, which is one of the main motors for the violence, corruption and the violation of human rights in Mexico.” This may be the first step towards marked policy change and the decline of the drug cartels.

But legalizing marijuana is not a panacea for Mexico’s drug cartel woes. As it happens, Mexican drug cartels rely primarily on the United States market for support. Since marijuana accounts for a fifth of cartel revenue, legalizing marijuana in the US can have a more debilitating effect on the cartels than legalization in Mexico. As states slowly legalize marijuana and better quality strains are produced in the United States, demand for Mexican marijuana drops.

Furthermore, even if the cartels are dealt the blow of federal legalization in the United States, only one branch of the criminal enterprise will wither. Mexican drug cartels are bigger than marijuana, and will continue to profit from kidnapping, extortion, and the sales of other drugs. This ruling may be a win for self-determination, but it is scarcely the death knell of Mexico’s drug cartels.

The real victory here is for personal freedoms, and the United States could not have said the same after Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) in which the Supreme Court held that marijuana, even if home-grown and used for non-commercial purposes, could be banned by Congress. The court explained that under the Commerce Clause, Congress could regulate interstate commerce, and locally grown marijuana could potentially have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.”[1] The court stretched the Commerce Clause nearly to its breaking point by relying on the aggregate effect on the economy that could be created by individual marijuana growth.

In a fiery dissent, Justice Thomas warned about the slippery slope effect, writing that under such reasoning, “the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.”[2] But even Justice Thomas only warned about the infringement on state sovereignty, and made no mention of individual autonomy.[3] This is in stark contrast to the Mexican Supreme Court ruling, which focused on individual rights.

What might account for the difference? The right to freely develop your personality is a principle of Mexican law. The United States Constitution has no such language. Still, the United States is hardly a stranger to the concept of individual liberty. Could banning the individual’s possession and/or consumption of marijuana be a deprivation of the right to property? Or in cases of medical necessity, a violation of the right to life? Or a blanket denial of liberty?

If Raich had taken the human rights approach employed by SMART’s lawyers, maybe the question wouldn’t have been whether Congress has the right to regulate marijuana under the Commerce Clause, but whether Congress’ interest in regulating marijuana outweighs the right to life, liberty, and property.